Summary of 6-1-2015 Special Meeting of MGCC Transportation

320 South Griggs Street
St. Paul, MN 55105
www.macgrove.org
Phone: 651-695-4000
Fax: 651-695-4004
E-mail: [email protected]
Summary of the June 1 Special Meeting of the Macalester-Groveland Community Council Transportation Committee
On June 1, 2015 the Transportation Committee of the Macalester-Groveland Community Council held a special meeting
to facilitate community discussion about the proposed Cleveland Avenue bike lane installation between Randolph
Avenue and Summit Avenue. Reuben Collins presented the proposed plan and the recommendations from the City of
Saint Paul Public Works department, and answered attendees’ questions. Barbara Raye from the Center for Policy,
Planning, and Performance facilitated the discussion. Over 50 community members attended the meeting. The
Macalester-Groveland Community Council committed to sharing feedback presented at the community meeting with
the City Council.
What follows is a summary of the views expressed during the question-and-answer session as well as the subsequent
open community discussion:
In opposition:
Accessibility



Two individuals felt that loss of parking on Cleveland Avenue would make it difficult for people with
disabilities, seniors, and women who are pregnant or have children to access their homes or local
businesses.
One individual expressed concern that loss of parking on Cleveland Avenue would prevent seniors and
individuals with disabilities from easily accessing weekly services at Kehilat Sar Shalom.
One individual expressed concerns that loss of parking on Cleveland Avenue would make it difficult for
families to pick-up and drop-off children at nearby child care centers.
Parking




One individual expressed concern that loss of parking on Cleveland Avenue would cause University of St.
Thomas students to park in residential areas.
Five individuals expressed concern that loss of parking on Cleveland Avenue would be detrimental to
businesses on that street.
One individual expressed concern that parking data collected by Public Works staff did not accurately
reflect parking counts, especially during special events at the O’Shaughnessy at St. Catherine’s
University.
One individual expressed concern that loss of parking would negatively affect tenants living in
apartments on Cleveland Avenue.
Public Process








Three individuals felt that community feedback from April 29, 2015 Public Works open house was not
reflected in the proposed plan presented by Public Works.
One individual expressed concern that Public Works was not adequately presenting community
feedback from the community to the Transportation Committee of the Planning Commission or to City
Council.
Two individuals felt that the nearby business owners were not notified of the proposed plan early
enough.
One individual felt that the community was not consulted for input when the Citywide Bike Plan was
developed.
One individual felt the City of Saint Paul planners and City Council are biased towards bicyclists.
One individual felt that community input would not be considered.
One individual felt that decisions were being made by people who don’t live in the MacalesterGroveland neighborhood.
One individual felt it was a waste of time to attend community meetings.
Route Choice/Design


Six individuals advocated that Finn Street should be used as the North-South bike route through the
Macalester-Groveland neighborhood instead of Cleveland Avenue.
Two individuals advocated for protected bike lanes on Cleveland Avenue instead.
Safety


Four individuals felt that Cleveland Avenue was not a good candidate for a North-South bike route due
to heavy traffic and expressed concerns for safety.
One individual felt that since buses on Cleveland Avenue would need to stop in the lane if bike lanes
were installed, traffic response could be unsafe.
Winter Weather


Three individuals expressed concerns that the bike lane on Cleveland Avenue would not be utilized in
the winter.
One individual expressed concern that residents would not be able to park on Cleveland Avenue during
snow emergencies.
In support:
Businesses


Two individuals felt bike lane development often fosters growth of local businesses since more people than
before are walking and biking to destinations.
Two individuals planned to use the Cleveland Avenue bike lane to patronize businesses along Cleveland.
Safety

Four individuals thought the bike lane installation would improve safety for people biking on Cleveland and
indicated they would use the bike lane.
Parking


One individual felt that car storage was a poor use of public right of way.
One individual suggested installing parking meters on Cleveland and using revenue to fund parking bays.
Public Process

Three individuals thought the community had been given ample time to weigh in on proposed bike lanes
through the years-long engagement process used to develop Citywide Bike Plan.
Route Choice

One individual felt that Cleveland Avenue was an optimal choice for a North-South bike lane, since Finn and
Niles are discontinuous.
Additional written comments submitted by community members prior to and during the meeting are enclosed.